…well, apparently the Sibley County GOP thinking Things That Make Sally Jo Sorenson Angry Even Though She Doesn’t Appear To Understand Them All That Well.

I’ll add some emphasis here and there:

Bluestem’s favorite Minnesota Republican Basic Party Operating Unit (BPOU) is at it again, promoting an informational town hall against the court-delayed organizing of home-based daycare providers, while simultaneously asking the readers of the New Ulm Journal to dream of a future where moms can stay home and care for their own kids.

Yes, indeedie: Emily Gruenhagen and her fellow executive board members are here to save daycare so they can destroy it…The more recent epistle, Childcare Unionization Town Hall Meeting, repeats standard talking points against the organizing drive by AFSCME, before asserting this vision for a better Minnesota:

“Imagine a society with taxes and utility rates so low that mothers have the economic freedom to choose to stay home with their children, again…”

Yes, indeedie. Those days of women staying home in the glory days of the 1950s and 1960s (or 1850s and 1860s) had absolutely nothing to do with wages, and everything to do with low taxes and utility rates.

And yes indeedie-doo, the market for daycare today is all about women with degrees in Arts Admin from Saint Olaf having time to run off to their day job at an arts-education non-profit to negotiate a visit by a Bulgarian women’s therapeutic drum circle co-op.

Sure. Sometimes it is.

But much more often, it’s about low-income women (and, uh, men) needing someone to watch the kids while they earn a living – something that Sally Jo Sorenson’s Democrat party just made a whole lot harder, especially in rural Minnesota.

And daycare unionization will do absolutely nothing for those families – or the daycare union providers – but make it less affordable.

Sorenson swerves through a krazy kwilt of other bits of outstate un-PC before returning, eventually, to the daycare topic:

Representatives Glenn Gruenhagen and Dean Urdahl, along with Senator Scott Newman and anti-daycare union advocate Hollie Saville, who shares the belief that allowing daycare providers to vote to choose or reject representation amounts to “forced unionization,” will speak at the meeting, the letter notes.

The good ol’ “if you can mock it, it must be false”. Never seen that one before from every single Minnesota “progressive” blogger. Nosirreebob.

But there are two objective facts that every “progressive” supporter of the union jamdown is either ignorant about, or just lies about:

The “election” to unionize is always, always stuffed with ringers – unlicensed providers that the unions drag into the election to stuff the ballot boxes. It’s what they’ve done to pass unionization in many states (Michigan jumps to mind), and it’s what they’re doing in Minnesota. So when people like Sally Jo Sorenson say “what’s wrong with letting daycares choose?”, they either don’t know how the plan works, or they’re lying. You know where my money is.

If and when the jamdown happens, the “union” will provide absolutely nothing to the daycare providers but a bill for services. No more money (that’s between the providers and their clients). No more “training” that the providers aren’t obliged to provide for themselves via state law already (and no help getting that). Nothing. Bupkes. All it’ll be is a bill – that must be either eaten, or passed on to the parents, their clients, or avoided by refusing families who take part in the government daycare subsidy program – which in turn raises the price and lowers the supply of daycare.

So Sally Jo Sorenson is pushing a rigged election that will lead to a jamdown the licensed providers don’t want (they can already join the union, although 99.5% don’t), that will lead to hikes in Minnesota’s already-high daycare prices, pricing more working families out of the market for daycare.

I’m going to guess Sally Jo Sorenson has never been a parent in one of those poor working families. I have. Daycare costs more than rent for many families; it did for mine, twenty years ago. Jacking up that bill for no benefit other than giving the public employee unions (and the DFL they own) a new $2 million annual revenue stream isn’t just cynical; it’s cruel.

Why does Sally Jo Sorenson hate working families?

Oh, you don’t have to believe me. Hollee Saville – one of the leaders of the brilliant grassroots campaign against the DFL/AFSCME/SEIU’s well-funded push – tried to leave Sorenson a comment. Now, Sorenson doesn’t often post critical comments – and never without writing her response first, which is certainly her right; it’s her blog. But it sorta screams “insecure”, doesn’t it?

Anyway – goodness only knows if Saville’s response will ever see the light of day on “Bluestem Prairie”.

So with her permission, I’m posting it here. Below the jump.

Saville’s response follows:

———-

“Sally Jo,

I don’t expect you to approve my comments, but perhaps you will read them and learn from them. I cannot speak to any of your obvious disdain for the Sibley County GOP and its leaders, but I know them to be good people. The fact that they are opposed to the forced unionization of our small businesses is one plus for them. I am also PRO-childcare, though you put “anti-daycare union advocate.” Your choice of words technically says that I am opposed to daydcares but am a union advocate; you must have me confused with AFSCME organizers. For the record, I am pro-childcare and, therefore, opposed to childcare unionization. However, I am NOT anti-union. I know that puts a dent in the main argument childcare union proponents like to make about people opposed to this, so feel free to take as long as you need to spin some more misrepresentations that I can easily refute.

I suppose you don’t know anything about the Constitution or you support the trampling of the rights enumerated by it. Please point out where it allows individuals to be forced to be represented by an organization, regardless of whether or not they want that representation. You won’t find it, but you’ll clearly find the 1st Amendment protecting people’s freedom of association. Please look through it to find support for denying a vote to people who will be affected by an election. Approximately 50% of licensed family child care providers will be denied a vote on child care unionization, something that WILL affect them because AFSCME has repeatedly stated they want to influence licensing regulations, trainings, and grievance procedures. Yet 6500 unlicensed providers–75% of whom are no longer providing care (fact straight from DHS)–would be allowed to vote on whether or not to unionize our whole industry! You won’t find justification for it, but you will find the 14th Amendment supports our Equal Protection!

It sounds like you have been spoon-fed lies from AFSCME without reading the new (illegal) law and do not understand the profession of licensed family childcare. Otherwise, you would realize that denying a vote to half of licensed providers on something that will affect them, then requiring them to pay “fair share” fees or union dues to AFSCME if it passes would be, by definition, forcing them to unionize!

This is illegal and unconstitutional as we are independent small business owners! Many of us are EMPLOYERS and hire independent contractors. Following this so-called logic, they could unionize grocery store owners who accept WIC and Food Stamps, dentists, doctors, and chiropractors who accept forms of public healthcare, landlords of low-income housing, or independent contractors who receive a payment for services from the government. I’m baffled that you can justify trampling on fundamental parts of the Constitution and federal labor law.

Please note that legislators already have the power to raise the CCAP rate, yet the supposed “labor-friendly” DFL chose NOT to raise it this session, even with majority control and no threat of veto. DFL legislators didn’t feel it was important to raise the CCAP rate, yet claimed the reason they voted for child care unionization was to raise the CCAP rate. Why should the money be funneled through AFSCME?

Providers in Illinois pay up to $900/year; New York providers pay $400-$700/year, but the subsidy rate hasn’t increased. The MINIMUM is $300/year in the states with childcare unions, but only a small amount of that would stay in Minnesota, per AFSCME national bylaws. Most providers cannot afford an expense like this, so they will have to pass the cost on to their clients (the ones we choose to enroll because we’re our own bosses) by raising their rates or make even less than they do now by assuming the expense.

This unionization does not give us anything we cannot already do ourselves, but it forces us to pay the union if the election goes their way. Everything I have accomplished in my childcare, for childcare providers, children, and families, I did on my own and with other providers by talking with elected officials, DHS, etc. Many of us providers have worked with DHS and licensors to promote consistency, fairness, and understanding with licensing rules, regulations, and enforcement, all at no cost to providers or taxpayers. We already have a voice. Providers and MLFCCA have individually and collaboratively worked with other providers, DHS, and legislators to make positive changes (or much less intrusive ones than were proposed). We did all this without the help of a union. We already have state, city, and county child care associations that work solely for licensed family childcare providers and the families they serve. Membership is voluntary and normally only $35/year.

This will limit the access to high quality childcare for low-income children and families who need it most. Providers have said they will stop caring for children on assistance because they do not want to pay the union. How sad that we will be forced to make that choice if the election unionizes us.

AFSCME would take more than $4 million/year from funds meant to help low-income children and families and cost taxpayers $1 – $3 MILLION (or more) every single year just to manage the provisions of the new law. Minnesota taxpayers are already struggling to make ends meet.

Child care unionization also creates conflicts of interest because AFSCME would represent providers and the state employees they’d bargain with on behalf of the providers. What if the employees of childcare providers want to join a union?

She craps a kitten when she thinks she sees sexism. But she has no problem dishing it out. Notice all her references to Dave Osmek – “Big Dave?” Sen. Osmek’s a husky guy, har di har. Think she’d have shat herself with rage if any GOP blogger had called Margaret Kelleher Big Marge? Marge the Barge? Fat Maggie?

Ever seen Sorenson? There was a pic of her floating around a while ago. I can see why she stays incognito. I’d call her Coyote Ugly Sally.

The union goons that are pushing this idiotic agenda, don’t care that Minnesota already has the highest day care costs in the country. As far as I’m concerned, unions are no more than legalized crime. They are no better than thugs running an extortion/protection rackets!